5 ms·

It seems a lot of people “suffer” from the problem of wanting to live in a nice rural area without a lot of people or hassles but then want most of the same ame

It seems a lot of people “suffer” from the problem of wanting to live in a nice rural area without a lot of people or hassles but then want most of the same amenities of large cities. And by working remotely and exploiting the situation it never occurs to them to open up their own business/ grocery store. I’m sure other people that live in those areas would love to have a well stocked grocery store as well.

CalRobert 7y ago
It occurs to us, but doing tech work remote is much more lucrative and reliable. Also, are you sure people want it? If so why do these stores close?
- techsupporter 7y ago
  > If so why do these stores close? Because for every one or two fantastically wealthy-beyond-all-belief-for-the-area technologist who moves in, five people who don't have a job like that leave the region in search of something that pays an income. A lot of these bucolic rural areas with a few thousand people in a county exist because of an industry that was present decades ago that has now collapsed. So, sure, the property is cheap and the town is relatively uncomplicated...but people who don't make six figures (and, thus, can pretty much choose to live wherever we want) are leaving because the opportunities are gone. One or two tech-paycheck-family households can't sustain a set of businesses that had 7,000 potential customers before. I've watched this happen with where my parents grew up and in my grandparents' hometowns before them. Everyone I know in Seattle who isn't in tech didn't move to Seattle to get a tech job; they moved from Idaho and Utah and eastern Oregon and eastern Washington to find work because their sub-10,000-person towns are (in some cases literally) drying up and blowing away yet, even here, they're being pushed out because of salaries. Yes, I'm leading into wealth inequality and it having gotten so bad that people are squeezed on the starting end because the towns where they grew up are collapsing and squeezed on the destination end because trying to live where the jobs are increasingly doesn't result in the level of income required to actually live there. But those of us in tech can simply decamp to our 5,000sqft houses on three acres of land and pull in Silicon Valley wages in a Montana property market and feel quite clever. I don't blame the individual who makes this decision but it still seems quite perverse.
  - CalRobert 7y ago
    Oh, I know - I meant it rhetorically basically. If the last grocery store failed I'm not likely to think it's a good idea to start another. And I suppose I do feel a bit clever (though in my case it's a ~500 sqft house on a few acres - quirky and cheap) but mostly am just angry that the city decided it was OK to add thousands and thousands and thousands of good jobs and ~0 homes.
  - eaandkw 7y ago
    I always like using the example of minimalism. It really only works when a small number of people do it. If everyone did it the economy would collapse. And the coffee shops would be unusable because everyone would be in there trying to use the Wifi.
    - pm90 7y ago
      Capitalism kicks in. The proprietor would build a bigger coffeeshop. Or someone would open a Starbucks.
  - nine_k 7y ago
    If enough people with six-figure incomes moved in to a small town, they could revive a grocery store there. The problem is that they try to live as much away from other such people as possible, to keep the low prices and the feeling of living in an extremely uncrowded countryside.
    - CalRobert 7y ago
      For what it's worth I prefer the city. I miss the city. I moved to a tiny town for one single reason: it's insanely cheap. So cheap I can buy a house, decide to move somewhere in a few years, and just keep the old house around in case in case I need it in the future Instead of giving my money to my landlord I can keep it. Ironically this might mean I can afford to move to the city in a few years. More people joining in would be really nice, actually.
TulliusCicero 7y ago
Yes, and then they often blame "the system" (could either be corporations or the government, or both) for the natural outcome of living in an area without many people, which is that there are fewer useful services around, or that they're more expensive. Rural America as it is, is already heavily subsidized by urban America, but it's common for people to say that we're leaving them behind, when even as it is they're being carried along. Collectively speaking, rural Americans are extremely dependent people.
- weberc2 7y ago
  I don’t think I know any “rural person” who is complaining or even speaks about “being left behind”. Just my data point, but I grew up in rural America and still have lots of connections, so your claim is, uh, surprising to say the least. Maybe the impression of “rural Americans” you received while in the Bay Area / Munich was less than accurate?
  - TulliusCicero 7y ago
    Seriously? A huge cultural meme when it comes to Trump being elected was this idea that rural America was disaffected and disheartened because it had been 'left behind' economically. Another example, every once in a while you'll see an article or a politician talking about what a tragedy it is that broadband is more expensive/worse in rural America, and how we need to, say, support some government program to fix that through subsidies. Usually said articles will include some quotes from people who are in relevant areas. I'll see comments on articles -- including places like HN -- talking about how satellite internet operators are "price gouging" people for mediocre speeds. But I admit that I'm far from an expert on this topic, it would be interesting to read studies or polls on how people in rural areas feel about this.
    - dboreham 7y ago
      I think it's mostly about racism /tribalism and lack of decent education. The stuff about being left behind is just air cover to make it harder to hear the dog whistles. Disclosure: I live in a rural US location. Oh and I built my own Internet (last 10 miles) because the subsidies are all tailored to big companies who already have plenty money.

CalRobert 7y ago

It occurs to us, but doing tech work remote is much more lucrative and reliable. Also, are you sure people want it? If so why do these stores close?

techsupporter 7y ago
> If so why do these stores close? Because for every one or two fantastically wealthy-beyond-all-belief-for-the-area technologist who moves in, five people who don't have a job like that leave the region in search of something that pays an income. A lot of these bucolic rural areas with a few thousand people in a county exist because of an industry that was present decades ago that has now collapsed. So, sure, the property is cheap and the town is relatively uncomplicated...but people who don't make six figures (and, thus, can pretty much choose to live wherever we want) are leaving because the opportunities are gone. One or two tech-paycheck-family households can't sustain a set of businesses that had 7,000 potential customers before. I've watched this happen with where my parents grew up and in my grandparents' hometowns before them. Everyone I know in Seattle who isn't in tech didn't move to Seattle to get a tech job; they moved from Idaho and Utah and eastern Oregon and eastern Washington to find work because their sub-10,000-person towns are (in some cases literally) drying up and blowing away yet, even here, they're being pushed out because of salaries. Yes, I'm leading into wealth inequality and it having gotten so bad that people are squeezed on the starting end because the towns where they grew up are collapsing and squeezed on the destination end because trying to live where the jobs are increasingly doesn't result in the level of income required to actually live there. But those of us in tech can simply decamp to our 5,000sqft houses on three acres of land and pull in Silicon Valley wages in a Montana property market and feel quite clever. I don't blame the individual who makes this decision but it still seems quite perverse.
- CalRobert 7y ago
  Oh, I know - I meant it rhetorically basically. If the last grocery store failed I'm not likely to think it's a good idea to start another. And I suppose I do feel a bit clever (though in my case it's a ~500 sqft house on a few acres - quirky and cheap) but mostly am just angry that the city decided it was OK to add thousands and thousands and thousands of good jobs and ~0 homes.
- eaandkw 7y ago
  I always like using the example of minimalism. It really only works when a small number of people do it. If everyone did it the economy would collapse. And the coffee shops would be unusable because everyone would be in there trying to use the Wifi.
  - pm90 7y ago
    Capitalism kicks in. The proprietor would build a bigger coffeeshop. Or someone would open a Starbucks.
- nine_k 7y ago
  If enough people with six-figure incomes moved in to a small town, they could revive a grocery store there. The problem is that they try to live as much away from other such people as possible, to keep the low prices and the feeling of living in an extremely uncrowded countryside.
  - CalRobert 7y ago
    For what it's worth I prefer the city. I miss the city. I moved to a tiny town for one single reason: it's insanely cheap. So cheap I can buy a house, decide to move somewhere in a few years, and just keep the old house around in case in case I need it in the future Instead of giving my money to my landlord I can keep it. Ironically this might mean I can afford to move to the city in a few years. More people joining in would be really nice, actually.

TulliusCicero 7y ago

Yes, and then they often blame "the system" (could either be corporations or the government, or both) for the natural outcome of living in an area without many people, which is that there are fewer useful services around, or that they're more expensive. Rural America as it is, is already heavily subsidized by urban America, but it's common for people to say that we're leaving them behind, when even as it is they're being carried along. Collectively speaking, rural Americans are extremely dependent people.

weberc2 7y ago
I don’t think I know any “rural person” who is complaining or even speaks about “being left behind”. Just my data point, but I grew up in rural America and still have lots of connections, so your claim is, uh, surprising to say the least. Maybe the impression of “rural Americans” you received while in the Bay Area / Munich was less than accurate?
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  Seriously? A huge cultural meme when it comes to Trump being elected was this idea that rural America was disaffected and disheartened because it had been 'left behind' economically. Another example, every once in a while you'll see an article or a politician talking about what a tragedy it is that broadband is more expensive/worse in rural America, and how we need to, say, support some government program to fix that through subsidies. Usually said articles will include some quotes from people who are in relevant areas. I'll see comments on articles -- including places like HN -- talking about how satellite internet operators are "price gouging" people for mediocre speeds. But I admit that I'm far from an expert on this topic, it would be interesting to read studies or polls on how people in rural areas feel about this.
  - dboreham 7y ago
    I think it's mostly about racism /tribalism and lack of decent education. The stuff about being left behind is just air cover to make it harder to hear the dog whistles. Disclosure: I live in a rural US location. Oh and I built my own Internet (last 10 miles) because the subsidies are all tailored to big companies who already have plenty money.